sendGmailEmail

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only restates the core action and mentions optional reply capability, but does not disclose consequences like the email being immediately sent and irreversible, nor any permission or failure handling. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description consists of two concise sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds relevant information, making it efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations or output schema, the description is too brief. It omits important operational details such as whether the email is sent immediately, that the action is irreversible, and what a successful send returns. These gaps could lead to misuse or confusion.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema covers all 7 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that threadId/inReplyTo enable replying to an existing thread, which is not fully captured by the parameter names alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool sends an email via the user's Gmail account, using the specific verb 'Sends' and resource 'email'. It distinguishes itself from potential siblings like saveGmailDraft by emphasizing 'directly' sending rather than drafting.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for sending emails, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as saveGmailDraft, which is a notable sibling for drafts. It does provide context for replies via threadId, but no exclusions or alternative guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.